This is one American Jewish university
scholar's narrative and prescription for Palestinian and Jewish students on
their shared campuses.
------------------------
Liora Danan (Liora@rice.edu) is a senior at Rice
University in Texas.
She was born in Israel, where she spent much of the
year 2000 attending Hebrew University and as a youth guide for Young Judea
Israel programs.
Liora ate every day in the University's cafeteria on
Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, that was recently bombed.
She is a rabbi's daughter.
------------------------
Most articles about the one-sided, self-promoting, and
uncreative campus rallies tend to blame one group or another. These
rallies have added up to about nothing.
Liora Danan recently published this courageous new
kind of editorial article.
She illustrates and personalizes the traps of both
"overzealous activism" and of "inaction" by both
Palestinian and Jewish students nationwide that have brought the Middle East
pain and grief to university campuses.
Liora pleads to her fellow students to end the
fist-shaking, rallies, and hatred.
"Our preliminary aim must be to eliminate the
movement toward mutual distrust and dehumanization.
"But the opposite of overzealous activism should
not be inaction; this disables any movement to dispel detrimental myths and
stereotypes.
"Instead, those of us who have fought fervently
in this debate, as well as those who have stood on the sidelines, should push
for the facilitation of dialogue.
"Despite what some activists would have you
believe, it is possible to recognize the equal human right to life on both
sides and to support both peoples in their development of a common
future."

Unable to reconcile clashing claims, two peoples have
declared war against each other: Rally-forming, flag-burning, fist-shaking
hatred has dissolved hopes of creative conflict resolution.
And the front lines are closer than you think.
As unceasing violence and grief come to define the
status quo of daily life for both Palestinians and Israelis, their war has
spread to American universities, engaging pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian
students in a public relations battle as they vie for the support of fellow
classmates.
The ethnic tolerance and cultural exchange that
formerly characterized American college campuses -- and even the potential for
a continued peace process in the Middle East - stand to be sacrificed in the
cross fire.
At San Fransisco State University last semester,
Jewish students reported that fighting broke out when pro-Palestinian students
shouted hate epithets like "Hitler did not finish the job" and
"get out or we will kill you," at 50 pro-Israel students who attended
a "Peace in the Middle East" Rally.
Pro-Palestinian students said they were prompted by
the Jewish students, who yelled words like "nigger,"
"terrorist" and "Arab loser." On the same campus,
pro-Palestinian students displayed posters of soup cans with labels depicting
dead babies and reading, "canned Palestinian children meat, slaughtered
according to Jewish rites under American license."
Extremists on both sides have been able to exploit the
openness of American campuses either to replant anti-Semitic and
Holocaust-denial movements or to promote racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim
sentiments. Intimidation, vandalism and print propaganda all indicate that
racism and bigotry have resurfaced on college campuses, but disguised this time
by the complicated issues surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Campus activists fail to recognize that in the context
of Middle East violence, we bear the burden of ensuring that freedom of speech
is employed toward a productive end.
This summer, I attended a Hillel seminar in Jerusalem,
in which I, along with 350 Jewish students from American universities, were
indoctrinated with militant, pro-Israeli rhetoric and encouraged to serve as
soldiers on our own campuses in defense of the Israeli cause. And 350 students,
blinded by their instinct to defend against the other side, accepted the
challenge.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is complex. So I was
alarmed to find myself surrounded by intelligent, committed American students
who were unwilling to raise their awareness of the issues involved or consider
alternative viewpoints.
The Students for Justice in Palestine held a similar
conference this year for pro-Palestinian student activists and, based on the
rhetoric released by the organization, espoused an equally uncompromising
statement of purpose. In fact, both SJP and the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, Washington's pro-Israel lobby, dismiss dialogue between the two
sides as either unnecessary or ineffective.
It is precisely this type of defensive attitude that
has created the antagonistic environment that made taking sides necessary in
the first place.
The cycle is disturbingly reminiscent of the same
shortsightedness and refusal to compromise that brought war to the Middle East
in the first place. In our scramble to "win the argument," we've lost
sight of our common goal: the cessation of bloodshed and unnecessary suffering.
There are alternatives, but they can be arrived at
only through open dialogue and innovative problem solving. At The University of
California at Berkeley, for example, Jewish and Arab students have started a
group called "Salaam-Shalom" that aims to bridge differences through
an email listserv, educational videos and speakers and constructive discussion.
Such groups base their interactions on the idea that
it is impossible to truly listen if you are still trying to convince someone of
your own opinion. Real communication, on the other hand, can help build the
personal relationships that are essential for coexistence.
It's easy to assume that a lack of violent or highly
visible confrontation over the issue on the Rice campus means we are immune to
the detrimental effects of this conflict. But lack of dialogue leads to
ignorance, encouraging continued intolerance. This leaves engaged students to
build up preexisting prejudices, while uninvolved students remain largely
uninformed on one of the most crucial issues in today's world.
Our preliminary aim must be to eliminate the movement
toward mutual distrust and dehumanization. But the opposite of overzealous
activism should not be inaction; this disables any movement to dispel
detrimental myths and stereotypes. Instead, those of us who have fought
fervently in this debate, as well as those who have stood on the sidelines,
should push for the facilitation of dialogue.
Despite what some activists would have you believe, it
is possible to recognize the equal human right to life on both sides and to
support both peoples in their development of a common future.

Liora Danan (Liora@rice.edu) is senior news editor and a Martel College senior.